how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
 

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:59:52 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:05:49 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:
cut

more pronoucement from on High

you make the assertion explain why

Follow the url I posted for the ARRL band plans. Read them. We can
discuss it when you're educated.


I have

nothing is stated that says CW SSB or AM are somehow not subject to
adjustment or local (or repgional) varriation, indeed the ARRL would
lack the power to say that

Don't tell me what it doesn't say, Mark.

one asshole I'll say what I like

two it says not a thing about CW SSB or AM being different than FM
wrt to local varriation

Tell me what it says. It
doesn't say anything about ending world hunger, saving the whales or any
number of things. Six meters frequently opens for regional QSOs and
even worldwide QSOs.

Tell me what negative consequences there might be
for a national band plan if guys in Podunk, Iowa began implementing a
local band plan.

depends on what they did. Using AM say near the top of 6M as a local
window to avoid DX is unlikely to harm anything esp if they stay off
the repeater pairs


your assertion you back it up

What was my assertion, Mark? That you go to the ARRL band plan url and
read it?

"For 6m AM, SSB and CW? You're simply incorrect."

you aserted it and then were too dumb to remeber what you said



don't be your normal lazy bum self and tell others to do your work for
you do it

That is *precisely* what you repeatedly ask others to do for you.

I do ask it which is not what I was talking about.

I don't give people ORDERS. I don't tell what what to do, except to
get of when they start giving orders


You
ask questions about a topic of which you know little.

"which is how we find out things I think I read that in maual
somewhere" (drfloyd 2010)

You're provided
information or are pointed to where the information can be found (which
you haven't troubled yourself to find and study on your own).

sometimes never done with much in the way manners something the
ProCoders keep telling they have more of but moving along

You begin
disputing the information.

as is my right

esp when you present things as "facts" that clearly are not

It is the question of the 5 MHz frequencies
all over again.

and you just can't stand anyone daring to dispute anything you say

You don't use a spell checking program because you can't be bothered, so
you continue to post gibberish and to tell readers that it is their
problem.

is someone holding a gun to head and MAKING you read. if call the Cops

I make no one read anything of mine

I do think however as the ProCoders them selves say that if they want
to read they should expect to work at it, then they will value it
more.

It is like poetry you make it too easy and it means nothing.

In my case I seek to reach those that "will ignore the shout but
strain to hear the wishper" (a ST:NG quote a trill amabssdor anmed
Odan)

If you want to see a lazy guy, stare into a mirror.


One size does not fit
all. Read your ARRL repeater guide. Notice all the caveats wrt band
plans, coordination, and even spacing.

Those are regional differences, not local ones. What does the repeater
guide say about 6m AM operation?



Do you know of any 6m AM repeaters
anywhere?

Do you know why there can't be?

There is no reason that my house can't be chartreuse...but it isn't.

Do you know of any 6m AM repeaters? Just one will get you off the hook.


which matters how

no reason a 6m Am repeater can be built.

No reason it can be built? Did you mean "can't be built". Read my
comments above.


you understand the question so answer rather than evade, lazy bum

The lazy bum was the guy who wrote it incorrectly and posted it without
correction.

stil does bother with the issue

always the attack SoP of the stpid and the Lazy



I know Riley was going on about a 2m AM repeater at one point

Great. There've been AM repeaters on 5m, 6m and 2m in the past. I know
of none at the present. Were you and the boys in the club going to
start a 6m AM repeater?


which mean you knoew of them? which means your point was what?

I "knoew" of them? I know a lot of things, Mark. My point was exactly
what I asked you: Do you know of any 6m AM repeaters in existence in
the United States of America?

not at this time

and still what was the point?


you are about as myopic as Stevie

I'm sure it seems that way to a lazy dyslexic.

more bashing and not even original

boring Davie


Dave K8MN

Dave K8MN an ture oppentant to invovation of any kind in Ham radio

what is Ham luddites club number Davie?

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
 

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:48:03 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:52:41 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:


wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


an_old_friend wrote:
cut
not at all

I was trying to spark an On Topic discussion HERE about how folks
would go about local band planing

It is "band planning", Mark and it isn't done on a local basis.


It can be on vhf and above frequencies. You just need to open your
mind a little, a very little.

It can't be done locally if there is any chance of interfering with
other regional repeaters.


more pronucements from on high

the MM's have spoken

Not "pronucements", Mark, but "pronouncements". With which of my
statements do you disagree?

all of them

you advance the notion that nothing can be if the is ANY chance of
interference.

That statement is a load of ****

nothing say anything like that


If you are coordinating to avoid putting your
local machine with one 50 or 75 miles away, you aren't dealing with
local band planning. You're dealing with regional band planning.


not according to the ARRL you are being pretty certain about the
meaning of words

I understand that the concept might be alien to a guy who has trouble
with words. Yes, I'm generally pretty certain about the meaning of
words. That is a tool which has served me well.

do publish the dictionary of the words you choose to make up new
meanings for

it might help

but then I forgot you can't be helpfull or constructive can you?



the ARRL says local bandplaning is possible

Not "bandplaning", Mark, but "band planning".

shve the distintion up your ass

Quote the material. I
provided you a url to the ARRL band plans. Nothing is mentioned about
local band planning.

I am quote the text PRINTED by the ARRL

but then when you see fit the ARRL lies


Now, what do your comments have to do with 6m AM operation?


why does it have to?

...because you brought it up.

no I did not

the subject was Bandplaning you myopicaly choose to focus on an
example to exclusion of all other examples or posiiblities

I know asking you to think is asking you to exceed your abilities, but
I never asked you in particular to jump.

now that you have you might try being constructive

or not of course as you choose

the topic was local band planing as described in the ARRL repeater
guide as possible

"Band planning", Mark. Please provide some evidence that the ARRL
endorses local band plans. Feel free to demonstrate that you have any
knowledge at all of band planning anywhere, any time.

Dave K8MN

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
 

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:48:03 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:52:41 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:
cut

"Band planning", Mark. Please provide some evidence that the ARRL
endorses local band plans. Feel free to demonstrate that you have any
knowledge at all of band planning anywhere, any time.

please show you have any such knowledge

indeed please show us you know anything true at all

Dave K8MN

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
 

wrote

Using AM say near the top of 6M as a local window to
avoid DX is unlikely to harm anything esp if they stay off
the repeater pairs

IIRC there are some simplex frequencies scattered between 53.0 and the top of
the band. Any of them ought to be OK to use regardless of mode, without any
blessing from anyone. I suggested the lower segment because of the wide-open
nature down there, without the possibility of being clobbered (or clobbering)
nearby WBFM repeaters.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
 

On 19 Oct 2005 14:50:07 -0700, wrote:


KØHB wrote:
wrote


we are Yoopers can't seem to raise anyone at the listed coordinator
OTOH neither do the emails bounce


I don't think the repeater coordinators care what you do on other modes. Here
in Minnesota, at least, they concern themselves only with the repeater
sub-bands.

Yet there are frequency coordinators listed in the ARRL Repeater Guide
that do concern themselves with with frequencies, especially if you
wan't to operate outside the ordinary bandplans.

If I wanted to establish a new local AM presence I wouldn't even involve the
coordinator, if for no other reason than it's outside their job description, and
once you have their advice it becomes a "rule" of sorts. Fugitit!

Yikes! Rules from people working outside "thier" job descriptions.

As I mentioned earlier, in this area the casual AM'ers seem to be clustered
between 50.400 and 50.550, although I think there are a couple of nets that use
50.355. My inclination would be to stay above the SSB weak signal guys and
below the digital stuff. That gives you 600KHz, or roughly 75 6KHz AM slots
with 3KHz guard channels interleaved.

Fair enough. But they just might have some crystals for freqs in the
repeater bands (whatever those happen to be at the moment), and want to
do some operating as long as they don't interfere with existing users.
He never did say what he wanted to do exactly.

what I have been doing is listening to the local's folks

and I find there are thing about various bandplans that they don't
like

one is number of folks here and that Includes me) want to operate 6 AM
without hearing from DX

another is some arguement over FSATV here north of the "A" Line which
cuts off the bottom of the band where FSATV hangs out in most places

a thrid issue is some of the local are not happy about the 222
bandplan, not quite sure yet what the beef is , all I do know is that
it has something to do with the fact we can reach Canada on that Band
fairly often. Indeed I manage a 222 MHZ FM simplex sked most weeks
with ham in Thunder Bay Ont

I know it is possible to adpot local variants.it would nice nice to
know how to go about it. One could just do as we please and more than
likely no one will notice. I don't like that "solution" as I know it
encourages chaos and if we start ignoring the bandplans in VHF then HF
bandplans are real danger. what I am looking for is an alternitive, a
way to deal with local within the struture so we can encourage
continued adherence to bandplans by making them fit us where we can,
and at VHF and up we can do this in real terms

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
 

On 19 Oct 2005 14:58:48 -0700, wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

cut


Do you think the various 6M repeater plans can't have room for another
repeater?

You told us of

your lack of knowledge of where 6m AM activity might be found. A couple
of us told you. Now you'll undoubtedly string us along for a number of
posts as you did over the 60m "band".

Perhaps he and other associates have no 6M crystal for where the AM
activity might be found and wants a local variation.

Yeah, that not being able to buy a crystal would be a significant hurdle.

Sheesh.

CW has been crammed down our throats since the 70's because some
thirld-worlder might not be able to purchase a microphone so I think
it's legitimate that a person in America might want to try out a rig
with a crystal already in hand without having to special order one from
Jan.

Of course, your opinion is different

i question your last statement. i realy don't think we are hearing
Dave opinion at all I think we are hearing some rote he picked up over
the years

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
 

wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 14:50:07 -0700, wrote:


KØHB wrote:
wrote


we are Yoopers can't seem to raise anyone at the listed coordinator
OTOH neither do the emails bounce


I don't think the repeater coordinators care what you do on other modes. Here
in Minnesota, at least, they concern themselves only with the repeater
sub-bands.

Yet there are frequency coordinators listed in the ARRL Repeater Guide
that do concern themselves with with frequencies, especially if you
wan't to operate outside the ordinary bandplans.

If I wanted to establish a new local AM presence I wouldn't even involve the
coordinator, if for no other reason than it's outside their job description, and
once you have their advice it becomes a "rule" of sorts. Fugitit!

Yikes! Rules from people working outside "thier" job descriptions.

As I mentioned earlier, in this area the casual AM'ers seem to be clustered
between 50.400 and 50.550, although I think there are a couple of netsthat use
50.355. My inclination would be to stay above the SSB weak signal guys and
below the digital stuff. That gives you 600KHz, or roughly 75 6KHz AMslots
with 3KHz guard channels interleaved.

Fair enough. But they just might have some crystals for freqs in the
repeater bands (whatever those happen to be at the moment), and want to
do some operating as long as they don't interfere with existing users.
He never did say what he wanted to do exactly.

what I have been doing is listening to the local's folks

and I find there are thing about various bandplans that they don't
like

OK.

And this is different from any other law...HOW?

one is number of folks here and that Includes me) want to operate 6 AM
without hearing from DX

OK...Leave your coax plugged into an dummy load...(No, not
him...the 50 ohm one under the desk...)

If you don't want to "hear from the DX", then just don't answer
them. Otherwise you're at the whim of the Propagation God, and he
doesn't give a hoot who you want to hear from or not. When six meters
is open, it's open...When it's not, it's not.

If you want to just "work the locals", select one of the 2M or
70cm coordinated simplex channels. There's more than enough and you're
far enough away from any major city so as to not have to "deal" with
the DX.

another is some arguement over FSATV here north of the "A" Line which
cuts off the bottom of the band where FSATV hangs out in most places

So have the guys who live north of the line use the higher
channels to transmit on and below the line use the lower...

Problem solved.

a thrid issue is some of the local are not happy about the 222
bandplan, not quite sure yet what the beef is , all I do know is that
it has something to do with the fact we can reach Canada on that Band
fairly often. Indeed I manage a 222 MHZ FM simplex sked most weeks
with ham in Thunder Bay Ont

The beef is that we gave away the lower 2Mhz.

I know it is possible to adpot local variants.it would nice nice to
know how to go about it. One could just do as we please and more than
likely no one will notice.

ta-DAAAAAAAAAAH! Just make sure you're not interfering with any
users who ARE in compliance with the bandplan and you have no problem.

I don't like that "solution" as I know it
encourages chaos and if we start ignoring the bandplans in VHF then HF
bandplans are real danger. what I am looking for is an alternitive, a
way to deal with local within the struture so we can encourage
continued adherence to bandplans by making them fit us where we can,
and at VHF and up we can do this in real terms

Know how I avoid this problem...?!?!

I start off any transmission that MIGHT cause interference with...

"Is this frequency in use...?!?!"

Works just as well above 50Mhz as it does below it...

Steve, K4YZ

Stevie blows mental gasket badly
 

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 14:50:07 -0700, wrote:


KØHB wrote:
wrote


we are Yoopers can't seem to raise anyone at the listed coordinator
OTOH neither do the emails bounce


I don't think the repeater coordinators care what you do on other modes. Here
in Minnesota, at least, they concern themselves only with the repeater
sub-bands.

Yet there are frequency coordinators listed in the ARRL Repeater Guide
that do concern themselves with with frequencies, especially if you
wan't to operate outside the ordinary bandplans.

If I wanted to establish a new local AM presence I wouldn't even involve the
coordinator, if for no other reason than it's outside their job description, and
once you have their advice it becomes a "rule" of sorts. Fugitit!

Yikes! Rules from people working outside "thier" job descriptions.

As I mentioned earlier, in this area the casual AM'ers seem to be clustered
between 50.400 and 50.550, although I think there are a couple of nets that use
50.355. My inclination would be to stay above the SSB weak signal guys and
below the digital stuff. That gives you 600KHz, or roughly 75 6KHz AM slots
with 3KHz guard channels interleaved.

Fair enough. But they just might have some crystals for freqs in the
repeater bands (whatever those happen to be at the moment), and want to
do some operating as long as they don't interfere with existing users.
He never did say what he wanted to do exactly.

what I have been doing is listening to the local's folks

and I find there are thing about various bandplans that they don't
like

OK.

And this is different from any other law...HOW?

well it is different since bandplans are not laws in any sense

you are realy over the edge the ARRL does not make laws

the FCC does not make laws

neither of these bodies has the power to make laws

thank you for showing off your mental breakdown ...

cuting the rest of Stevie raving

how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
 

"K4YZ" wrote

And this is different from any other law...HOW?

Bandplans are cooperative agreements between affected amateurs, not "laws".

how a policy issue for a change...local bandplaning
 

raped_an_old_friends_husband wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 14:50:07 -0700, wrote:


KØHB wrote:
wrote


we are Yoopers can't seem to raise anyone at the listed coordinator
OTOH neither do the emails bounce


I don't think the repeater coordinators care what you do on other modes. Here
in Minnesota, at least, they concern themselves only with the repeater
sub-bands.

Yet there are frequency coordinators listed in the ARRL Repeater Guide
that do concern themselves with with frequencies, especially if you
wan't to operate outside the ordinary bandplans.

If I wanted to establish a new local AM presence I wouldn't even involve the
coordinator, if for no other reason than it's outside their job description, and
once you have their advice it becomes a "rule" of sorts. Fugitit!

Yikes! Rules from people working outside "thier" job descriptions.

As I mentioned earlier, in this area the casual AM'ers seem to be clustered
between 50.400 and 50.550, although I think there are a couple of nets that use
50.355. My inclination would be to stay above the SSB weak signalguys and
below the digital stuff. That gives you 600KHz, or roughly 75 6KHz AM slots
with 3KHz guard channels interleaved.

Fair enough. But they just might have some crystals for freqs in the
repeater bands (whatever those happen to be at the moment), and wantto
do some operating as long as they don't interfere with existing users.
He never did say what he wanted to do exactly.

what I have been doing is listening to the local's folks

and I find there are thing about various bandplans that they don't
like

OK.

And this is different from any other law...HOW?

well it is different since bandplans are not laws in any sense

Sure they are.

The FCC has said that Amateur coordination groups were the defacto
band planning resources, and that persons who operated in such a way as
to cause interference to those plans was violating FCC rules and
regulations.

you are realy over the edge the ARRL does not make laws

"really"

I didn't say ANYthing about the ARRL, Mark...

So I'd have to say YOU are over the edge.

the FCC does not make laws

neither of these bodies has the power to make laws

thank you for showing off your mental breakdown ...

No breakdown, Markie.

The FCC regulates numerous forms of communications in direct
response to thier mandate in the Communications Act of 1934 and others
as ammended.

Congress has delegated those parts of THIER responsiblities TO the
FCC in said Act

The Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission
as publsihed by them in the Federal Register ARE laws.

cuting the rest of Stevie raving

"cutting"

Reinserting since there was NO "raving"

QUOTE

one is number of folks here and that Includes me) want to operate 6 AM
without hearing from DX

OK...Leave your coax plugged into an dummy load...(No, not
him...the 50 ohm one under the desk...)

If you don't want to "hear from the DX", then just don't answer
them. Otherwise you're at the whim of the Propagation God, and he
doesn't give a hoot who you want to hear from or not. When six meters
is open, it's open...When it's not, it's not.

If you want to just "work the locals", select one of the 2M or
70cm coordinated simplex channels. There's more than enough and you're

far enough away from any major city so as to not have to "deal" with
the DX.

another is some arguement over FSATV here north of the "A" Line which
cuts off the bottom of the band where FSATV hangs out in most places

So have the guys who live north of the line use the higher
channels to transmit on and below the line use the lower...

Problem solved.

a thrid issue is some of the local are not happy about the 222
bandplan, not quite sure yet what the beef is , all I do know is that
it has something to do with the fact we can reach Canada on that Band
fairly often. Indeed I manage a 222 MHZ FM simplex sked most weeks
with ham in Thunder Bay Ont

The beef is that we gave away the lower 2Mhz.

I know it is possible to adpot local variants.it would nice nice to
know how to go about it. One could just do as we please and more than
likely no one will notice.

ta-DAAAAAAAAAAH! Just make sure you're not interfering with any
users who ARE in compliance with the bandplan and you have no problem.

I don't like that "solution" as I know it
encourages chaos and if we start ignoring the bandplans in VHF then HF
bandplans are real danger. what I am looking for is an alternitive, a
way to deal with local within the struture so we can encourage
continued adherence to bandplans by making them fit us where we can,
and at VHF and up we can do this in real terms

Know how I avoid this problem...?!?!

I start off any transmission that MIGHT cause interference with...


"Is this frequency in use...?!?!"

Works just as well above 50Mhz as it does below it...

Steve, K4YZ

UNQUOTE